What does Steve Hoffman think of the new Beatles Sgt. Pepper remix?

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by NGeorge, May 31, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mine says, "MILES ABBEY ROAD 1/2 SPEED". Go figure...
     
  2. aphexj

    aphexj Sound mind & body

    The versions I've seen on Discogs corroborate you and Miles' own claim on the video from the previous page reinforces it. Maybe I just have to post it a few more times :)
     
  3. Correct.......technically...
     
  4. aphexj

    aphexj Sound mind & body

    A man named McGee, no relationship to the mastering engineer who works at Abbey Road named Sean Magee, certainly did NOT cut the 2017 vinyl, that much is true

    And again:

     
  5. telepicker97

    telepicker97 Got Any Gum?

    Location:
    Midwest
    Hmmmm...

    Either way, Miles obviously didn't use the same amount of limiting or compression to cut his version - there's no way simply low/high passing frequencies would open it up the way people say.

    He used the unmolested files to cut the vinyl: he added limiting and compression to the consumer digital releases.

    Simple.

    When we send our record to Welcome to 1979 for mastering, they specifically state do not add compression, EQ, limiting, normalization, or volume maximization, and please keep your mix under -6 dB to give their cutting engineer some headroom.

    No one cutting at Abbey Road would take their crushed, limited, post-compression/EQ files to the lathe and cut the 1/2 speed lacquer from those files.

    And I guess I assumed that would be common knowledge...
     
  6. telepicker97

    telepicker97 Got Any Gum?

    Location:
    Midwest
    And none of them used their crushed, limited, post-compression files to cut any record, ever.
     
  7. aphexj

    aphexj Sound mind & body

    Would you like to check? We can do a simple test to confirm this
     
  8. telepicker97

    telepicker97 Got Any Gum?

    Location:
    Midwest
    I can't while I'm at work - I don't have the necessary components here.
     
  9. slane

    slane Forum Resident

    Location:
    Merrie England
    Try it, you may be surprised.
     
  10. telepicker97

    telepicker97 Got Any Gum?

    Location:
    Midwest
    Well, what setting do you use for vinyl rips?
     
  11. slane

    slane Forum Resident

    Location:
    Merrie England
    Just take the CD and apply a HPF @ somewhere between 30-50 Hz.
     
    telepicker97 likes this.
  12. telepicker97

    telepicker97 Got Any Gum?

    Location:
    Midwest
    Ok, I can do that for comparisons sake, but I do a lot of vinyl/analog rips @24/96 - what do you suggest for those?
     
  13. slane

    slane Forum Resident

    Location:
    Merrie England
    I don't know, I probably wouldn't bother for vinyl rips. I'm just suggesting a way that the CD master may have been made to appear more dynamic for the vinyl edition.
     
  14. telepicker97

    telepicker97 Got Any Gum?

    Location:
    Midwest
    Why wouldn't one simply use files that don't need such shenanigans to sound good, as in, the original files, that aren't as compressed or limited, when they're obviously available.

    Better sound quality + less work = path of least resistance.

    And yes, I usually do absolutely nothing to vinyl rips but fade in/out at beginning/end of sides, then turn it up.
     
  15. Ephi82

    Ephi82 Still have two ears working

    Location:
    S FL
    Giles Martin has heaped praise on Showell for the vinyl Master.
     
  16. telepicker97

    telepicker97 Got Any Gum?

    Location:
    Midwest
    As he should.
     
  17. slane

    slane Forum Resident

    Location:
    Merrie England
    If the compression is in the mix itself (which I believe to be the case), then there are no 'uncompressed' files. From the CD waveforms, it doesn't look like there is that much limiting applied to the mixes (Michael Fremer looked at the waveforms and reported 'no flat tops' - but that's only half the story), just 'bloating' compression.

    Vinyl may not be able to handle all that low end, hence a possible HPF for the vinyl. The 'side effect' of that is more dynamics.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2017
  18. telepicker97

    telepicker97 Got Any Gum?

    Location:
    Midwest
    But there is definitely more compression and limiting in the digital - it's audible to me.
     
  19. Gems-A-Bems

    Gems-A-Bems Forum Resident

    Location:
    The Duke City
    The point is: what is audible to you very well could be the results of that filter.
     
    c-eling likes this.
  20. thrivingonariff

    thrivingonariff Forum Resident

    Location:
    US
    Do you believe that the limiting for the vinyl premaster was the same as that for the digital master?
     
    telepicker97 likes this.
  21. c-eling

    c-eling They're made of light,We never would have guessed

    What's you opinion on it Gems? Been on the fence with it as I'm thinking it just may be a re-level for the format.
    I won't buy it if that's the case
     
  22. rnranimal

    rnranimal Senior Member

    Location:
    Ohio
    I'm curious. How would limited amount be checked when comparing vinyl to CD? Even if the vinyl were cut from an equally limited source, it would have peaks constructed/enhanced from the D>A and playback processes. Limiting will always look less on vinyl. Heck, play a limited CD and capture the analog output back to digital and you'll get a higher DR and higher peaks.
     
    telepicker97, Mr. Explorer and slane like this.
  23. Gems-A-Bems

    Gems-A-Bems Forum Resident

    Location:
    The Duke City
    My opinion on the Pepper remix LP? I don’t find the mix itself engaging enough to bother with the vinyl, unfortunately.
     
    Cassius likes this.
  24. Classicrock

    Classicrock Senior Member

    Location:
    South West, UK.
    Loudness did not go into overdrive with the advent of CD. CD came out in 1983 and it wasn't until around 99/2000 that I realised something was wrong. Many currently available CDs from 90's and earlier do not have loud mastering because nobody thought it worth remastering them (fortunately). I think loud recording and mixing started with Oasis (the brit pop ban). I remember reading complaints about ) Oasis back then but the general problem of loud mastering for CD production along with a crushed mix was a few years down the line and coincided with digital 'in the box' such as Pro Tools made possible by the development of large enough and affordable computer disc drives. So as soon as they had the technology to completely F up recordings they did. Recordings certainly always regularly had analogue compression but it is with the advent of digital compression that it became really nasty. Unfortunately many younger engineers appear wedded to this type of production, mainly those who likely have never used a tape machine.

    The mention of pops and clicks being added to vinyl was humour on the part of the poster. I get enough pops and clicks due to poor pressing practices. As far as music selling better because it is loud there is actually no evidence to back this up. Radio and streaming services normalise the sound level to be fairly uniform. So there logically is no apparent point from a sales perspective. The labels and some engineers are just ideologically wedded to the idea of loud. There is no reason to produce loud physical media as it isn't going to be played much in an environment were loud may be prefered, such as phones or in car. Most cars don't even accommodate CD anymore. So loud CDs are just driving people with serious audio systems away or back to buying vinyl.
     
  25. John Grimes

    John Grimes Forum Resident

    Location:
    Columbia, TN
    Out of 50 pages of a thread called, "What Does Steve Hoffman Think Of The New Sgt. Pepper Remix?" Does anyone have a definitive answer yet?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine